ABC Radio National
HOST: Ahead of today's first question time, Prime Minister Julia Gillard joins you in our Parliament House studio, now.
Prime Minister, good morning and welcome back to Radio National Breakfast.
PM: Thank you very much, Fran. Great to be with you.
HOST: Prime Minister, we've been told to expect a cuddlier, kinder, gentler parliament, but today's question time will be just as confrontational as ever, won't it?
PM: Well, Fran, I guess we'll just have to get there and see, but I think the overwhelming message here, Fran, is the Australian people have voted for this parliament, and this parliament requires us to work differently. That's what the Australian people have voted for, so obviously, as Prime Minister, I am determined to deliver Labor's agenda, but I also recognise the Australian people have voted for this parliament and that requires us to work in new and different ways. You saw that on display yesterday, with the election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker and the Second Deputy Speaker.
Today in question time I expect that the Opposition will be doing everything it can to hold the Government to account, and Fran, that's appropriate. You know, that's what question time is for.
What we're saying, though, is it's important that when we disagree, when there are disagreements in the chamber, particularly with some heat associated with them, that they are about big picture issues in the national interest, not the Opposition just pursuing politics for politics' sake, or just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
HOST: You've not been beyond some sort of sniping and fairly attacking behaviour in question time in the past, though. Are you planning on changing your ways?
PM: Oh, look, Fran, I'm obviously someone who's been known as a pretty feisty political advocate, and you should expect me to show that same spirit when I'm arguing for the big changes that this nation needs for our future - whether that's keeping the economy strong and what we need to do that, to make sure that people have got the benefits and dignity of work; whether it's about transforming education; reforming health - you should expect to see me there putting some strong arguments, but the Australian people have sent us a message in this parliament. I've heard that message, and I have been saying to Mr Abbott, and I'm prepared to say it again, I think he needs to listen to that message, too. Australians don't want to see the Opposition disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing and they don't want to see people putting their political interests before the national interest.
HOST: Prime Minister, how can this parliament work if every time a Government minister is absent you need to get a leave pass from Tony Abbott, which he's already signalled won't be given away lightly?
PM: Well, I think this is a question, really, for Mr Abbott to show just some plain, old, common sense. You know, old-fashioned common sense. Throughout the many, many years of this parliament, people have recognised that there are times when government ministers, and, indeed, the Prime Minister, need to be absent from part or all of a parliamentary day in the nation's interest. I'd simply ask Mr Abbott to respect that.
HOST: And do you think he will? I mean, under the signals he's giving, it means the Opposition leader can and perhaps will, for instance, dictate what trips the Government ministers can and can't go on. Are you comfortable with that?
PM: Well, I think this will become a question of judgement for Mr Abbott, but with Mr Abbott knowing that ultimately the Australian people will be watching his conduct, and if Mr Abbott is saying to me as Prime Minister or to one of the ministers that they can't do something in the national interest because he'd prefer to play political games, then I think people will judge him very harshly on that - and so they should.
HOST: This would strike many listeners as a bit bizarre, I think.
PM: In what way, Fran? You're going to have to explain that to me.
HOST: Well, the fact that your behaviour - what you can, where you can go, what trips you might go on, what trips you might not go on - can be dictated by the Opposition.
PM: Well, it's only bizarre, Fran, if Mr Abbott doesn't use any common sense or any decency in the process. I mean, pairing, informal pairing arrangements in this parliament are as old as the hills. I mean, the Senate, obviously, has had tight numbers for a long period of time and they've worked through pairing arrangements which enable Government ministers to get about doing the work they need to do, enable people to attend to family obligations. Obviously, there are some times people need to leave the parliament because they've got to be back home for some circumstance for their family, or they've got to be back home for some circumstance for their electorate, some major electorate event that they seek to attend as that community's elected representative.
Now, if we've been able to show common sense about these things over the ages, then really the weight, I think, is on Mr Abbott to show common sense in this environment now.
HOST: Can you clear up one thing for us? There's been a bit of discussion about Tanya Plibersek, one of your ministers, due to have a baby in a little over a week. Has she been guaranteed a pair while on maternity leave? Is that clear?
PM: My understanding is that she will get a pair, and that Christopher Pyne did indicate that one of the few occasions they were prepared to consider pairing arrangements was for pregnancy and maternity leave.
HOST: You told Tony Abbott yesterday that this parliament was not a forum to, quote, 're-fight the election'. You also accused him of acting in bad faith. Do you trust Tony Abbott?
PM: Well, I've lived through the experience where we saw an agreement signed and endorsed about parliamentary reform, and then Mr Abbott walked away from it.
Of course, I've lived through the experience and the nation has lived through the experience, where Mr Abbott backed action on climate change, particularly the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in the last parliament, and then when he saw it in his political interest he trashed that and he walked away from the agreement.
And, of course, I've also seen Mr Abbott, during the course of the election campaign guarantee that people would see his costings, only to hide them because he was needing to hide an $11 billion black hole.
So, those things have happened. They do go to Mr Abbott's conduct, and I believe Australians will be looking at that conduct.
HOST: Well, talking of bad faith, I mean, can he trust you? One of your first acts in this new parliament yesterday was to nominate Liberal MP Peter Slipper as Deputy Speaker against his own side's nominee, against his own side's wishes. What's in that for you?
PM: Well, we entered an agreement about parliamentary reform, and that agreement did say that we wanted to see new independence in the role of Speaker and Deputy Speaker, and that the best situation was for them to come from opposing political parties, so obviously the parliament yesterday endorsed Harry Jenkins as Speaker, and he will do a great job.
We believed that Mr Slipper was a good person to show independence in the role of Deputy Speaker. He's been in the Speaker's chair before, in the last parliament. He's shown that independence - indeed, standing up to a dissent motion in one of his rulings from his own side - so we believe Mr Slipper being Deputy Speaker actually acquits the spirit of parliamentary reform.
Harry Jenkins: expert, independent, having withdrawn from Labor Party activities in order to be an independent Speaker; Mr Slipper in the Deputy Speaker's seat, having shown that he can be very independent and made of sturdy stuff-
HOST: -You're not trying to pretend, though, that Bruce Scott wouldn't have been equally suitable and you were just trying to out-manoeuvre the Coalition yesterday, wrong-foot them?
PM: Well, we came to the judgement that Mr Slipper was best for this position. I'm certainly very respectful of Mr Scott. I said yesterday in the parliament, and genuinely believe, he is a very, very decent man, and if you asked Labor Party people who 'd they'd talk to and chat with and have respectful conversations with from the other side I think he would come up on almost everybody's list. He worked with me very decently on the question of distance education when I was Minister for Education in the last parliament, but we did believe that Mr Slipper was the better candidate for the role of Deputy Speaker.
HOST: It's 7.46 on breakfast. Our guest this morning in the Parliament House studio is Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
Prime Minister you mentioned there, brought up the example of Tony Abbott walking away from agreement on climate change, action on climate change. You, of course, already reneged on your promise ruling out a carbon tax. How many other promises could go the same way due to the strictures of a hung parliament?
PM: Well, Fran, I'm determined to deliver Labor's agenda: to deliver the things we promised to keep our economy strong; to keep transforming our education system; to deliver our reforms in health. I am determined to do that.
As Prime Minister I also recognise that the Australian people have voted for this Parliament, and this is not a parliament where the Executive, the Government, can go to the House of Representatives and simply demand that its legislation is passed. We're in a new environment that's going to require co-operation, collaboration, negotiation. I'm looking forward to it. I think it's got great strengths.
HOST: On your multi-party climate change committee, Tony Windsor is a member of it. On The 7:30 Report last night he was hedging a little on his support for a price on carbon. He thought it was, quote, 'a little bit of a mistake' to start a 12-month process with a predetermined decision to put a price on carbon, but that's exactly what your terms of reference for this committee stipulate, isn't it?
PM: Well, obviously I'll be working and the multi-party committee will be working with Mr Windsor and others in good faith. Mr Windsor does see the need to tackle climate change. He wants to come to this process with options on the table and an open mind.
Obviously, the terms of reference of this committee are about putting a price on carbon as a necessary part of tackling climate change, but I think what Mr Windsor was indicating is he's going to come to the table, in good faith, using the best of his judgment and working through the options.
HOST: Sure, but he's not a signed up believer, necessarily, at this point of a price on carbon, to a price on carbon, so that's not a prerequisite?
PM: Well, the terms of reference indicate very clearly that the purpose of this committee is to work on developing further community consensus for action on climate change and also to deal with options for pricing carbon.
Now, Mr Windsor wants to work through those options. Obviously, having worked through those options, he may conclude that he doesn't believe any of the options is the way forward, that's possible, but he wants to work on the options in a spirit of goodwill and I welcome that.
HOST: Now this process is set down for 12 months, as I understand it. If this committee does deliver to Cabinet a consensus position on a carbon price, will you legislate for a carbon price before the next election?
PM: Well, what I want to do is get this multi-party committee working. At its core is building community consensus on climate change; at its core is examining options for pricing carbon. So, this committee is inclusive - Mr Windsor will be there, the Greens will be there.
I've extended an invitation to Mr Abbott to have appropriate representation from the Opposition. Of course, he does have sitting alongside him, a few seats away on his front bench, a man who's passionate about climate change and putting a price on carbon, and that's Malcolm Turnbull, so he could be a very good representative of the Opposition on this committee.
What we've said timeframe-wise is that we would work through and we would review where we are at the end of 2011-
HOST: -So that leaves you two years of Government then, if you run full term. Would you guarantee to introduce a price on carbon if that's what the committee consensus is?
PM: Fran, I know it's frustrating to journalists and I'm going to continue to-
HOST: -And to listeners I think-
PM: -Well, look this is a different Parliament. The Australian people voted for it.
We're going to have this multi-party committee, and in order for it to do its work properly, then I won't, as Prime Minister, sit here before it's even met and start playing the rule-in, rule-out games about what might happen at the committee. The committee will start, the committee will work, it'll do it diligently, and we'll see where it gets to and what the outcomes are.
I think your listeners would say to themselves, 'Gee, that's a proper process - I see that happen in my workplace, in my local sporting clubs, in my local council every day of the week', that people go into a room in good faith, not having swept things off the table, but allowing issues to be worked through.
HOST: Alright, at the risk of hitting the rule-in, rule-out brick wall again, two early Private Member's Bills we know that will come up via the Greens: one on voluntary euthanasia, you've said that there will be a conscience vote on that; what about the one on gay marriage? Will you allow a free vote on gay marriage on your side of politics?
PM: Well, look the Labor Party's got a clear position about the Marriage Act that is a Party position, so, Fran, you should expect to see the Labor Party voting as a political party, voting in unison if that proposition comes to the Parliament.
But, you know, I'm saying the word 'if' deliberately. Of course, there are members making suggestions about what Private Member's propositions they are interested in thinking about pursuing. The Parliament will then collect those up in a proper process, bills will need to be drafted, and then obviously choices and selections will need to be made about what bills go forward.
There is only so much parliamentary time. We've got to deal with Government business as well as Private Members business, so there will be some clear selections about which bills get parliamentary time.
HOST: Prime Minister, marshalling the parliament is one thing - what about marshalling your own troops? Graham Richardson writes today that you tried and failed to demote two Cabinet ministers in your ministerial shake-up because they threatened to force a by-election if they were demoted and you couldn't risk that with the numbers so close. Is that true?
PM: Completely untrue.
HOST: Have any of your colleagues threatened a by-election if they didn't get the job they wanted?
PM: No.
HOST: Will discipline, do you think, be an issue for you if you can't threaten MPs too much for fear they might walk away?
PM: Well, let's just be a little bit clear about this, Fran. That report is completely untrue.
I met with my ministerial colleagues. I met with colleagues who became parliamentary secretaries. No-one on the front bench, anybody with a Ministry, anybody with a parliamentary secretary, no-one got their position by suggesting that if they didn't get the job they would resign from Parliament. I never had a conversation of that nature with anybody in my ministry, anybody who is serving as a parliamentary secretary. It is complete nonsense.
So, having never had a conversation of that nature, I don't see why I should start speculating about what would happen if I did have conversations of that nature. I've never had one.
HOST: Just finally, Prime Minister, Treasurer Wayne Swan said in an interview with the Financial Review yesterday, quote, 'we are a better Government for the set-backs of the past couple of years'. He also said the make-up of this Parliament makes him more confident about the opportunity for reform, not less. Will you be a leader of major reform, economic and social, or will you be a more cautious leader worried about the power of one?
PM: No, absolutely not. It's my intention to approach this Parliament with a bold agenda. It's my intention to approach this Parliament with real leadership.
Fran, I've always believed fortune favours the brave and I'll take that spirit into this Parliament. We have a major agenda for change for this country to make us a stronger nation; to make us a fairer nation; to deal with questions of sustainability. We've got a big economic agenda about continuing to strengthen our economy, so people have got the benefits of work. We've got a transformative education agenda I want to see us deliver and build on-
HOST: -You've also got a hung parliament, though, to deal with?
PM: Well, we've got major health reforms that will make a difference for Australians now using the health system, as well as Australians in 10 and 20 years' time, and you should expect to see me leading on those questions.
I said very clearly, in my Light on the Hill speech, I am bringing the approach to this that we won with a landslide. We are going to get the job done. We're going to make it work. That's what the Australian people have voted for. I think that's exactly what they're asking us to do and I'm going to seize the opportunity that being in Government presents and that this parliament presents.
HOST: Prime Minister, good luck with making the Parliament work - good luck for all of us. Thank you very much for joining us on Breakfast.
PM: Thanks, Fran.